What would happen if a party won every seat

[Admin]

Just out of interest what would happen here in Australia if one political party won every one of the 151 seats and also the senate at an election. I know that just wont happen but for example would there still be an opposition? What would happen at Question Time, would that still exist? Etc etc

[facthunter]

 Some group would have to be very Popular or the election  rigged. Putin gets in with about 98% of the vote and most of the people who disagree with that die in strange circumstances. Nev

[onetrack]

We've nearly got to that point now, with the Liberals and Nationals and other minor parties all just becoming "also-rans", and providing no viable opposition to the ruling Labor Party.

 

When I was a youngster, the Opposition was strong and constantly hammering the party in power over their gaffes and missteps and poor decisions.

 

Now, we get some feeble attempts by Opposition parties at trying to score a hit on Labor errors, while these minor parties spend a huge amount of time infighting, swapping members, having standing members depart at a whim, and generally being bloody useless. Bring back some political Statesmanship (or Stateswomanship). We have hundreds of useless politicians and hardly a Statesman or a Stateswoman amongst them.

 

What's the difference between a politician and a Statesman or a Stateswoman? The first makes decisions only on what's good for their Party, their Lobbyists, or their own personal gain - a Statesman or a Stateswoman makes decisions, and produces future plans, based on what is good for the Nation in the long-term.

[Jerry_Atrick]

While it's hypothetical that a party will win all seats in both houses, it isn't hypothetical that a party wins such a strong majoirity in both seats that they may as well have won all of them, especially at the moment.

 

The old saying, "power corrupts and aboslute power absolutely corrupts" generally holds true, whether it is for personal enrichment, seeking to entrench power of disproportionately pushing an ideology. 

 

So what will happen will depend on the strength of the constitution and the constitutional institutions in applying the guardrails. 

 

On one hand we want to limit their power; on the other hand in such a situation, the electorate has spoken that it wants them to use their power. 

 

 

Edited Monday at 07:38 AM by Jerry_Atrick

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Which ever party won all the seats, they would then naturally pass an "Enabling Act" bill and block any attempts to hold future elections.

[old man emu]

For one Party to legitimately win an election in which other Parties are anihilated , then the winning Party must have had a platform so popular, and so sensible that to choose otherwise would be so clearly wrong. A basic knowledge of human interpersonal, nay animal, interactions tells us that such a situation could never eventuate. The idea runs counter to the very idea of individual survival instincts.

[Marty_d]

Only an utter bastard like Trump would try that.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Albo said not long after the last election "Labor is the natural party in Parliament".

 

What do you think of that?

[Jerry_Atrick]

At the moment I would agree

[Admin]

9 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Which ever party won all the seats, they would then naturally pass an "Enabling Act" bill and block any attempts to hold future elections.

To do that would require constituitional change incurring a referendum so one would hope the people would come to their senses for that. An election is one thing but a referndum on constituitional change would be a whole new kettle of fish.

 

My opening post was asking what it would be like for example could a member Cross The Floor and if so what would that look like...also wouldn't there still be an opposition but it would be internal rather than a defined party so bills may still not get passed? Would parliament become less of a child zone and be more professional because you could be more for the country rather than the against another party by still debating a bill but without the name calling and childish behaviour because you are in the same party?

 

Just some thoughts and questions without having the answers 🤔

[nomadpete]

I agree, Ian. It is an interesting thought experiment to try to visualise those scenarios.

 

Eg: Can someone actually 'cross the floor' if there is no other floor to go to?

 

Where can they sling mud if there isn't a opposition to target?

 

In question time, who would bother to question a party policy or law?

[octave]

I wonder if different factions within the one party would become a sort of opposition. This might be similar when party's meet now to determine policy 

[old man emu]

38 minutes ago, Admin said:

wouldn't there still be an opposition but it would be internal rather than a defined party

Something like that happened as a result of the 1917 "Conscription Referendum", which actually was not a referendum as defined under the Constitution, but a plebisite. Billy Hughes met opposition from within his own Party, so he left it and formed another Party.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

7 hours ago, octave said:

I wonder if different factions within the one party would become a sort of opposition. This might be similar when party's meet now to determine policy 

That's exactly what would happen. Remember Labor members split away from the ALP and formed the DLP. The current Liberal party just held a crisis meeting to placate the members who were against Net Zero. 

 

There's opposition in all parties, but mainly against certain policies that are controversial within the party. Kept quiet though, pretending the party is unified hee hee. 

[facthunter]

That  was based on CATHOLICS, B.A Santa Maria. A case of religion interfering with Politics, NEVER a Good idea.  Melbourne's Archbishop Mannix told his followers how they  Must vote. Where's THAT end up ? Like IRELAND ?  where CHRISTAIN's KILL each other.  Nev

 

[nomadpete]

I see what you did there...

'christains'....  ha!

 

I know you aint dyslectic.

[Jerry_Atrick]

12 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

The current Liberal party just held a crisis meeting to placate the members who were against Net Zero. 

Looks like they are all united.. like they were last time:

 

[Marty_d]

The Nat tail is definitely wagging the dog there.

i actually have some sympathy for Sussssan. She's trying to be a consultative leader as opposed to the jackbooted "my way or the highway" Dutton.

Unfortunately most of the moderate Libs lost their seats in the last election, leaving the conservatives in majority. So when she's consulting, the conservatives get their way, many of whom seem to be more closely aligned to the mad Nats than their own party.

So she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

The Libs seem to have forgotten that they lost lots of city seats to the teal independents precisely because of their stance on climate change. So how the hell do they think that taking an even stupider stance will win those seats back? Without those seats, they cannot get the numbers to form government.

On the other side, if they split from the mad Nats then they also don't have the numbers.

All the dithering about "we don't want net zero but we still want to stay in the Paris agreement" and "we're all about lowering power prices but we have no plans of how to, and we're going to do it with coal and gas even though renewables are cheaper" are not going to wash with the public. 

Looks like they've decided they want to be in opposition for the foreseeable future.

[Siso]

Its still up in the air weather renewables are cheaper. We need to remember no one anywhere in the world has got close to net 0 using weather dependent intermittent generation. Look at Germany and they get some clean energy from there neighbors. Any one that has got close has either nuclear (France, Sweden Ontario), large amounts of Hydro(Norway, Quebec, Albania) or geothermal(Iceland.) Australia has no nuclear, maybe some hard to access geothermal and hardly any hydro. We have around 7% traditional hydro and are very unlikely to get much more. All the hydrogen plants that have started have gone belly up at I don't know what cost to the government. I have aske a sitting member in the government about this in SA but he isn't getting back to me. May have to send another reminder today. Hydrogen is mentioned in either gencost or the ISP as part of the big plan. I don't know how much of the coalitions policy is gaslighting but I think ditching net 0 by 2050 but keeping in with Paris is a good thing. Hopefully we get the gas price sorted out and we can actually start making things again here. Jobs for our kids, better environmental and workplace laws the some other countries and will save burning bunker oil in big ships sending stuff overseas and back again. This last one really makes the government look stupid. This whole CO2 thing is a global problem. Again, look at electrictymaps. France | App | Electricity Maps France exporting about 13GW of power at the moment. In the UK , a country that is trying to do a similar thing to Australia except they have interconnectors with other countrys, is burning about 20, 000 tonnes of woodchips a day, a lot of which they inport from America to say they are using clean energy. Wood has similar emissions to coal but at least with coal you aren't burning bunker oil in ships to bring it to your country (in the UK). Google Drax power plant. They have also canned looking for gas in the North Sea and instead are going to import from Norway. It is all smoke and mirrors. I don't what the CIS is going to cost us.(capacity investment scheme) If intermittents are so cheap, why all the schemes ect.

[facthunter]

"whether". The relative costs are available.  NEW coal is very high. Private Investment won't touch it. Carbon Capture and storage is not a goer either. Gas Maybe. IF anyone Mentions BASELOAD they are Bull$#!tting. What we need is rapid adaption to changing demand. Batteries are near Instant response. . Nev

[Siso]

Please supply me with a link to the relative costs. No politician is being straight forward with it. Intermittents are the cheapest form of electricity if you forget about the extra transmission, battery's, artificial inertia and the considerable amount of underutilized gas backup. Being Aircraft type dudes on this site we realize underutiliseded plant is expensive, still need to do a hundred hourly every year weather you do 98 or 2 hours. Having a lot of inertia on the grid also reacts relatively quickly, has for a hundred years. Synchronous plants give a nice consistant sine wave. Inverters work by very fast switching and produce a steeped sinewave by switching on and of quickly. This is filtered to give a smooth wave form. Ask Spain what happens when an inverter starts acting up with little inertia on the grid.

[facthunter]

I believe the Spanish incident was Poor management  To get someone to quote you Must state what you will Pay? Kw/hr and make guaranteed Use. etc Standby has no  real limit to cost per unit. New Coal was recently ruled out by everybody with an interest in things Like Tomago Aluminium smelter which Last time I checked was 16% of NSW's electricity. State Gov's have in the Past made Power available to Aluminium Suppliers below COST. While  I consider Aluminium, Magnesium, steel and copper essential for Australia to Produce I doubt the Masses are Keen on paying for it.  Any new source of Power to be brought on line MUST be SYNCHED with the Rest of the Network and use balanced with supply, always. Having Vast distances to connect commits us to a lot of wires regardless of the Sources, and there is a call for duplication for safety of supply. Some remote areas could not pay the real cost of getting Power to their Location.   Black Lung disease is still occurring in the Hunter Valley and Mine dust descends On Newcastle when the Wind Blows from the wrong Place.  The WHOLE place is undermined as well making subsidence a common occurrence. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Hmm.. can't recall ever being offered free electricity when fossil was the major player in town. So much for the cost argument: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/australia-offer-three-hours-free-solar-per-day-millions-2025-11-04/